The charge often leveled against Calvinism is that it denies the free will choices of human beings and, by that premise, makes God the author and cause of the evils committed by men. The logic typically goes something like, “If man has no free will, and God elects only some and controls everything, including man’s sinful acts, then God is responsible for evil.” Oftentimes, it is further concluded that for God to cause men to do evil, where men have no choice in the matter, it would be unjust for God to punish them, since they had no choice in the matter. Therefore, the Calvinist’s God is unjust and the author of evil.
The problem with such charges against the Reformed camp, usually from Arminian Christians, is that they utterly fail to understand the position they are attacking. Calvinism does not deny free-will or that God pulls strings, as though people were marionette puppets, causing them to do evil things so that God can condemn them to eternal damnation later on. That is an uncharitable mis-characterization of the Reformed position, a straw-man. Those who attack the Reformed position on such grounds are merely attacking an argument that a Calvinist would never make.
If you think I am confused on this matter, then please feel free to pick up the works of Augustine, Anselm, Aquinas, Calvin, Spurgeon, Edwards, and countless others to see what they teach on these matters. Feel free to investigate for yourself the teachings of Albert Mohler, James White, or RC Sproul concerning the Reformed position. Indeed, please exercise your free-will by looking into the first fifteen hundred years of church history, to the writings of Paul, and to the teachings of Jesus. What will you find? The Reformed position.
The debate is not, and never was, whether or not mankind possessed a “free-will.” Rather, the real question asked by Calvinists and others of the Reformed ilk is more appropriately expressed as follows: “Is the will a thing? If so, then what kind of a thing is it?” And to this philosophical inquiry, comes the theological exclamation: “The human will is a created thing with an essence or a nature!” In other words, the free will exists as a contingent thing with a nature—that is the Reformed/Calvinistic position.
This might seem like silliness to those of you hearing this for the first time, but it is actually very important. It is important for our purposes here because the Arminian is actually the one ultimately denying the human will. I understand that all of your lives you have been indoctrinated to think the opposite, but that’s because so many churches and pastors have adopted some very unbiblical notions about “free-will” which they got from humanistic and secular philosophers. Yes, Arminianism is a late-comer on the stage of history.
The real debate between Calvinists and Arminians is, and has always been, whether or not the human will is a created thing with an essence. Armenians posit what is called “autonomous” or “libertarian free-will,” while the Reformed position declares “complimentarian free-will.” Notice here that everyone agrees that mankind has free-will. However, to the Calvinist, the will is simply the mind choosing, it is a faculty of the human soul. For the Arminian, the will is autonomous, self-contained, self-sufficient, and self-caused.
Is the will caused or not? There is no “middle road” here, since either the human will is either caused or uncaused. If you say it is “self-caused,” then you are saying that it brought itself into existence before it existed, which is self-contradictory. If it is uncaused, then it must be the first cause, in other words, God. Did you notice above how the Arminian definition of free will actually takes on divine characteristics (autonomous, self-contained, and self-sufficient)?
Seeing how I am writing this to Christians, I don’t think I need to point out the absurdities of either self-contradiction or about human wills being Gods. Therefore, the human will is a thing which was caused to exist. And if it was caused, then it was caused by another thing with a nature. Either that prior thing was also caused or it was God. And that prior thing was caused, either by God, or yet another contingent thing. Ultimately, either God is the first cause, or we have an infinite regression of created things causing other created things to come into existence—an infinite regression of causes and effects. However, if we have an infinite regression, then there was no first thing. And if there was no first thing, then there cannot be a second, or a third, and so on to infinity. Therefore, either God causes and creates the human will, or it does not exist.
Does this mean that man has no free will? No. However, it does mean that will is contingent, which is to say, dependent upon something else for its existence. Otherwise, you are elevated the human will to the level of deity, like humanistic secularists have done. But the will of man is dependent upon the nature of man—his preferences, his passions, his mind, and so forth. It is complimentary to his nature. I don’t choose things arbitrarily, like a sucking on a fudge bar verses my shoe. If I preferred the shoe, I would be sucking on that! And if it was arbitrary, and utterly autonomous, then it should make no difference as to my preferences. However, common sense says that it does depend upon my preferences, my nature.
This what Arminians do not get. They don’t understand Calvinism, and persist in misrepresenting it. I don’t care what you've heard about so-called “hyper-Calvinists” and so forth—and in actuality, hyper Calvinist exist because they, like Arminians, deny at least one of the five-points of Calvinism—we are talking about Calvinism, the Reformed and the orthodox view. Don’t believe me? Good! Be good Bereans and check it out for yourselves. You’ll find libertarian notions of “free-will” consistently condemned as heresy throughout church history.
Now, if I give my children a choice between chocolate and candy bars to eat, verses worms and poop and dirt, which would they choose? Does my foreknowledge or my setting up this state of affairs “violate” their free-will, since I foreknow they will choose the candy? Of course not! I know that they will choose in accordance to their nature, their preferences, and so forth prior to me giving them the choice. I don’t even need to look into the future to know that.
So how much more can our Sovereign God know our choices?
He is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. He created the man and sustains him, even more than like a potter shapes his clay. He even created and fully sustains the will, the volition of man. He fully knows what we will choose.
Since our choices are motioned forth by our natures, just as my own children choose candy over crap, the unregenerate chooses sin over holiness because that holiness is abominable to him. Just as eyes adjusted to darkness shut to hide themselves at the site of such intense, violating light, the sinner cannot choose God because God is abominable to him, painful, and piercing to eyes adjusted to darkness. As Scripture has said, the sinner flees because of their wicked deeds. They cannot choose God because they are slaves to that darkness, slaves to sin and haters of the Light, which is God.
I know this is a great mystery, but praise be to God.
Just to be up front about it, I think the sentiments of the video are largely in the right the place. Jesus is lifted up, honored, and respected. Amen to that. So what problem could I possibly have with the video? Am I chasing ghosts? Splitting hairs?
Before I try to answer the question, let’s take a look at some of the video comments on YouTube:
“God Bless You!! I agree completely. Everyone at my church, including me, does not call our selves Christians, but Christ-Followers!!! Thanks for the great video!!”
“This poem is well said. Being a Christian has nothing to do with Religion. Instead it is a relationship with Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen & Amen”
“Are you retarded? He made it about Christianity half way through the video, implying all other religions suck. Believing Jesus was the son of god, believing sin and believing the bible and living your life on those premises means you are following a religion. Now, you're clearly a religious person, so I'm not going to bother arguing with you because religious people have a tenancy to disregard all logic and substitute their own for anything they don't like.”
“I hate the church" "Now don't get me wrong I love the church”
“Saying you hate religion but love Jesus is like saying you hate rodents, but love squirrels. If you believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of the Abrahamic God whose only purpose was to forgive sin and open heaven, that's religion right there. That's Christianity at it's barest.”
Personally, I agree with the last post. I find it rather disingenuous to claim that you hate religion, while being so utterly religious...as one of the posts indicated. Being religious is not necessarily opposed to having a relationship with Christ or vice-versa. It is not one or the other, but both. People tend to forget that having a relationship with God is, by its very nature, a deeply religious affection.
God is holy, holy, holy. And by this very fact, He demands much more than just “a relationship” from us. I don’t even know what “a relationship” is supposed to mean. It’s such a vague term that anybody could mean anything by it. The Bible, however, gives us specific doctrines, instructions, and even practices to which we ought to adhere, believe, and obey. This is not to say that the relational aspects, devotion, or sincerity are not important, but to point out that such things actually have a divinely prescribed content to them, according to the very words of God! There is a reason why God chose prayer and not divination or sorcery, for example. There is also a reason why He commands us to love Him with not just our hearts, or sentiments, but also with our minds. This doesn't just mean having “good thoughts” about God, but also includes actually studying the things about Him, what He has said, and how He reveals Himself throughout history.
The video really demonizes religious people, especially other Christians. Jesus did not speak against anyone merely on the account of them being religious. This claim is false. (Indeed, He didn't even speak out against them just because they were a Pharisee or Sadducee). He spoke out against them mainly because they were 1) self-righteous and 2) attempted to prevent others from entering the kingdom. These are the actual reasons Scripture gives. They were not chastised for “being religious” or “too logical” or “following a list of laws.” Actually, if anything, they were picking and choosing which laws to follow, while breaking other commands, not being rational about Scripture, and elevating their traditions above the religion they professed to follow, which is what many of us do today. As far as people of other religions go, we are not to pass judgment upon them. As demonstrated in the Apostle Paul’s conversion, God can take the worst of sinners and change them into the greatest of saints.
As the comments up above demonstrate, there is much confusion over the video. It isn't difficult to understand why, if one stops to consider it for a moment: Does the author mean that those who are “religious” are automatically judgmental, legalistic, and without grace or mercy? Or is the author merely being creative with the word “religious” in order to redefine the term just to make a point? Personally, I do not know. I hope the second option is what he’s doing. At least, I lean in favor of the second possibility. The first one would be rather hypocritical right?...and ironically so.
Nonetheless, whichever way is intended, why use the word “religious” in order to signify something bad? I can understand using words like “legalistic,” “judgmental,” or “hypocritical,” but why this word? What does it mean? According to Webster’s, it means:
2: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances <joined a="">religious order></joined>
3: scrupulously and conscientiously faithful
So what bad thing, exactly, is referred to in any of these definitions? Aren't Christians (or “Christ-followers”) supposed to manifest faithful devotion to God? Aren't we supposed to have beliefs about God and engage in certain observances? And shouldn't we be scrupulously and conscientiously faithful to our God?
One might object by pointing out that being religious could be—and often is—bad because of its devotion and relation to false gods. That may be so. However, could the same be said of faith? Wouldn't you, then, agree that faithfulness is also bad, since it is more often than not wrongfully, and sinfully, invested into false deities and practice? But I am guessing that you shirk at that idea, right? So, if this is the case for you, why the double-standard? Are you taking for granted that being religious is actually according to God’s created order and according to His command? If so, we do not judge the design by the way it is abused.
About a month ago, I shared a note pertaining to the question of homosexuality and Christianity. If you read it, you might recall that the author, Mr. Adkins, supported same-sex marriage and condemned Christians for their alleged lack of love for homosexual couples. The writer of the post also meandered off-topic to conflate the issue of slavery in the Old Testament.
Below, I re-post the note to which I am responding; and then proceed to answer each point made. This is my response to his multiple allegations....
A Religious Question.
Just a question to any Christian who feels the need to answer. Do not be offended. As its a serious question. A Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Christ. Namely, the New Testament. So why is it, that you feel your religion is against gays?(if this is applicable to you. even if you don't hate gays. Doesn't mean you wouldn't agree with the previous) You do know Jesus never spoke one word on the subject right? If it really was such an offense, why would he not talk about it? He sure did a lot of speaking against rich people though. So if he took the time to point out that the wealthy people tended to be bad, wouldn't he point out that homosexuals who apparently do a much larger crime? Then you can say, "Well in the Old Testament," yes, in the old testament there are a few lines that can allude to gays, however even that's debatable. And do you really want to point to the Old Testament? With how angry and bitter God was in it? Where slavery is tolerated happily? Sure, God aparently wanted you to treat your slaves well, but called no moral questioning to the fact, and excuse my language, you had a fucking slave. If you bring that fact up, a typical response will be, "Well I believe in the New Testament," which brings us back to nothing. Jesus never bothered. (if he ever existed at all, by the way, that is not set in stone fact). The point is,
Your Christ told you to love. That's all. To love and treat other well. No matter what they did to you. Or what they did themselves. Your suppose to love. And if gays are "going to hell" and shouldn't be getting married. That is not why your here to make that call anyways. That's for your God, Jesus, or whatever magical leap of faith you've conjured up to take care of that matter.
So, let gays get married, love everyone like your suppose to, and move on with your life. You don't need to come home and kick the dog because gays are happy. And they'll ruin marriage and the American Family? Please? Have you watched Cable? Have you ever heard of Vegas?
Get, over it
~Cody Adkins
I respond by quoting the post, part by part, and giving an answer after each quotation:
“Just a question to any Christian who feels the need to answer. Do not be offended.”
I’m not offended. Since you've opened your questions to “any Christian,” I feel quite comfortable with responding, however, and with as much enthusiasm and liberty as you've taken in your note. You've offered several challenges here. They can be answered fairly easily. However, can you answer the challenges made by numerous Christians concerning your views?
“A Christian is someone who follows the teachings of Christ. Namely, the New Testament.”
Correct, a Christian is one who follows Jesus Christ. However, both Testaments are crucial to the Christian faith, from Genesis to Revelation. The Old Testament has just as much authority as the New Testament. Nonetheless, the OT was written in anticipation of the Messiah; while the NT was penned after His earthly presence. Certain aspects of Old Testament Law were fulfilled in Christ, and written in anticipation of His coming. Since He has already come, there is no longer any need to sacrifice animals, just for an example, because Christ is our ultimate sacrifice. Likewise, it is no longer mandatory to keep the Sabbath because Christ is our Sabbath.
“So why is it, that you feel your religion is against gays?(if this is applicable to you. even if you don't hate gays. Doesn't mean you wouldn't agree with the previous)”
Because the Bible—both OT and NT—clearly condemns homosexuality as an abomination and a grievous sin against God (but more on that later).
You are correct to anticipate that not all of us hate gays. I don’t hate gays either. However, just because I may love someone, does not mean they are not committing sins. Our religion is not against the people themselves, but against the practice and the political movement—the gay agenda. There will also be more on this subject later.
“You do know Jesus never spoke one word on the subject right? If it really was such an offense, why would he not talk about it?”
Most of Jesus’ earthly ministry was toward the Jews living under Roman authority in those days. The subject of committing homosexual acts or whether such acts were morally acceptable was not controversial to the Jewish mind. It was simply considered unholy and repugnant. Think about it. Let’s use murder as an example: if my audience already agrees that murder is wrong, how much time would you expect me to spend teaching them that murder is wrong? None, right? He didn't address that issue directly because it wasn't a controversy in His day. He did, however, address the topic indirectly.
He talked about what marriage was, defining it as a covenantal union between a man and a woman. He then commanded that no one break this covenant:
“But from the beginning of creation, God made them male and female. For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and the two shall become one flesh; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” (Mark 10:6–9 NASB).
Notice the reason for the union? It says because God made them male and female. He is alluding to the creation of man and woman in Genesis. This is what marriage is, by definition, according to Jesus Christ. In other words, He is agreeing with the Old Testament teachings about the purpose and definition of marriage. He then commands us to let no man separate the very union that God instituted upon making His creation.
“He sure did a lot of speaking against rich people though. So if he took the time to point out that the wealthy people tended to be bad, wouldn't he point out that homosexuals who apparently do a much larger crime?”
It is true that Jesus spoke against rich people on numerous occasions. However, it wasn't merely because they had wealth. Job had wealth, but God did not speak against him because of it. Solomon and David also had wealth, but God praised these men. The issue is the love of money. It is about greed, avarice, and treating others poorly. God blesses some people with wealth, but they squander it, loving their money and status more than they love the God who blessed them with it.
“Then you can say, "Well in the Old Testament," yes, in the old testament there are a few lines that can allude to gays, however even that's debatable.”
Well, actually it isn't debatable: The OT does, in fact, condemn homosexuality. Furthermore, the verses do not just vaguely “allude” to gays, but clearly condemns homosexual acts and practices. Had Mr. Adkins been familiar with the OT, he would have known this.
In the book of Genesis, God appears before Abraham and announces that He will destroy Sodom and Gomorrah for their sin. God calls their sin “exceedingly grave” (Gen 18:20) and tells us what this grievous sin is:
“Now the two angels came to Sodom in the evening as Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom. When Lot saw them, he rose to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground. And he said, “Now behold, my lords, please turn aside into your servant’s house, and spend the night, and wash your feet; then you may rise early and go on your way.” They said however, “No, but we shall spend the night in the square.” Yet he urged them strongly, so they turned aside to him and entered his house; and he prepared a feast for them, and baked unleavened bread, and they ate. Before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them.” But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, “Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof.” But they said, “Stand aside.” Furthermore, they said, “This one came in as an alien, and already he is acting like a judge; now we will treat you worse than them.” So they pressed hard against Lot and came near to break the door. But the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house with them, and shut the door. They struck the men who were at the doorway of the house with blindness, both small and great, so that they wearied themselves trying to find the doorway” (Gen 19:1–11).
The men of Sodom wanted to have sexual relations with the two men visiting Lot. The men of Sodom did not know that they were angels of the Lord, but thought they were merely foreigners. Homosexuality clearly permeated the culture of Sodom. Lot knew this. He even offered up his own daughters in exchange for the protection of his guests, which he also did not know to be angels. While this was a sinful act on Lot’s part, it does seem to indicate that Lot had been affected by the wickedness of Sodom while living there. As we will see, pervasive homosexuality does indeed affect those who live amongst it. Not only had it corrupted Lot, but we later learn that even Lot’s own daughters had some severe misconceptions about sexuality when they attempt to have sex with their own father. The men of Sodom had a “sexual orientation” and were very forceful about it, somewhat like the Gay agenda today. At any rate, God destroys this city shortly afterwards because their sin was exceedingly grave.
The book of Leviticus also condemns the practice of homosexuality:
“You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination” (Lev 18:22).
“If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them” (Lev 20:13).
Clearly, these commands do more than merely “allude” to gays. They outright condemn such practices.
“And do you really want to point to the Old Testament? With how angry and bitter God was in it? Where slavery is tolerated happily? Sure, God aparently wanted you to treat your slaves well, but called no moral questioning to the fact, and excuse my language, you had a fucking slave.”
I do not know any Christian who owns a slave, and I certainly never had one. Judging by the curse word, and the fact that it is contained in a belligerent sentence, it leads me to believe that this was an emotional response. However, I wonder how far Mr. Adkins goes to avoid products or clothing made by modern-day, slave labor? I honestly must wonder about the sincerity of a culture that condemns the practice when talking about early American history or the Old Testament, but does not seem to mind benefiting from the fruits of slave-labor. I suppose as long as it’s over-seas (or as long the American farmer’s crop is decently priced), benefiting from another’s slavery is okay, right? The reason you get your clothes and technologies so cheaply, Mr. Adkins, is because some Asian fellow is getting worked to death just to have a meal. Many oriental families live in horrible poverty, but work nearly every waking hour. That way, their masters can sell you products at little expense to them. The United States is the largest consumer in the world, and much of it comes from slave-labor.
We could also discuss the ethics of such a matter from an evolutionary standpoint—Survival of the fittest, right?—but I know such an emotional (or moral) objection could hardly be derived from that. The irony here is that Mr. Adkins’ objections about slavery come from his cultural conditioning; and those moral objects which our culture uses concerning slavery come from the Bible—both OT and NT.
Nonetheless, it is a bit of a dilemma: If we completely stopped buying such products, I highly doubt that slavery would end in those countries. Instead, those slave-laborers would have nothing, and they would starve, right? Those civilizations do not have the benefit of biblical ethics. They have no beginning moral foundations within their non-Christian world-views to even imagine that such a thing like slavery is wrong. Let’s think about this for a moment.
Throughout world history, the primary countries to abolish slavery have been those traditionally steeped in a biblical world-view. Why? Let’s look at India, for example. They have caste-system, where there is no upward mobility, no one helps the poor, and slavery conditions are perfectly acceptable. Mr. Adkins may not realize it, but it there are actually religious reasons why India’s culture is set up in such strict, caste systems.
In traditional Hinduism, there is no belief that all people are, somehow, intrinsically equal. They believe in reincarnation, a system that teaches that there are, indeed, hierarchies embedded in the very nature of living things—from insects on up to men. Even within humankind, there are those who are of lesser societal value, because they are not “enlightened,” to those who have attained such statuses as “godhood,” because they have become “enlightened.” Furthermore, there is hardly any charity given to those who suffer because the belief is, well, that they are paying their penance for sins committed in a previous life. It is wrong to interfere. Karma is at work. So, what religious motive would drive such a culture to refuse something like slavery? Leaving a person in the societal role of slavery is seen as a good thing—which is precisely why they have caste systems with no upward mobility. The same is true in traditional Buddhist countries too. Buddhism evolved out of Hinduism.
By contrast, anti-slavery movements came largely out of the Christian church. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a reverend. When he said, “I have a dream that all men were created equal,” he made this appeal on the basis of Genesis, where all people were created in the image of God, and derive their value and purpose from being made after the likeness of God. When Martin Luther King exhorted Americans to deliver slaves unto freedom, he appealed to the OT God’s deliverance of slaves from the hand of Pharaoh in the book of Exodus. Likewise, when our American forefathers taught that American citizens should have equal and inalienable rights, liberty and justice for all, and sought to abolish the tyranny of government, they appealed to Genesis to validate those beliefs. Having “inalienable rights” means that these rights are not to be foreign to mankind, because they are required as per the dignity of his very nature, which he derives from being made in the image of the Old Testament God.
God allows evil and suffering to occur in the world in accordance with the counsel of His own will. It is true that God prescribed certain laws for the treatment of slaves; however, stating that such a institution was “happily” accepted fails to seriously engage what times were like in those days as well as the way in which the OT engages the problem of slavery.
For one thing, there were actually several different varieties of slavery in Old Testament times. Most slavery, for example, was actually voluntary and even chattel slaves could still own their own property. For those of you who are familiar with the Bible, you know that Moses himself served as a slave. Some slaves were taken as spoils of war, these would more appropriately be called vassals. God had judged the nations for their grievous sins—like idolatry and child-sacrifices—and condemned them to death. The nation of Israel was His chosen tool in orchestrating that punishment, which included slavery. After all, in ancient times, the two most common ways to deal with prisoners of war and so forth was to either kill them or take them as spoils of war (vassals). So, really the question boils down to whether a holy God has the right to judge others for their sins, and sentence them to slavery. I think He does. According to what superior moral law does Mr. Adkins judge God?
While such judgments upon sin are a part of the over-arching structure of the OT, so too is the release from the bondage of slavery. Indeed, slavery as well as the freedom from it are crucial parts of both Old and New Testaments: Mr. Adkins’ divisions of the two is quite artificial. Christians do not read the Old Testament without considering what is in the NT. To us, it would be somewhat akin to reading a novel without considering its final chapters. Who does that? The point and the consummation of the novel is revealed in the story’s final culmination.
Nonetheless, the OT does not just “happily” accept the institution of slavery. Indeed, its very dealings on the matter create tensions of the sort which effectively undermine the institution in some profound ways. For one thing, isn't the entire book of Exodus about how God chose a slave-race of people, demonstrating His mercy and exposing the wickedness of Pharaoh for not setting them free? Did Mr. Adkins just not notice the pattern where it is not the cruel masters God shows partiality towards, but it is the slaves He shines His mercies upon? Surely more astute readers would wonder why God would take Moses, a prince of Egypt, and make him a slave BEFORE he heard the calling of God?
In contrast, wasn't much of early American slavery rooted in notions of evolution, where some races were superior humans while other, less-evolved races were “sub-human?” Indeed, we also have Hitler who murdered six million Jews based on his eugenics program. Does anyone seriously think eugenics came from the Bible, when we all know it came from an atheistic world-view? Interestingly, eugenics was the idea of an amateur scientist, Francis Galton, who was a cousin of Charles Darwin. He accredited Darwin for his theories, in letters to him, and thanked Darwin for helping him give up his religious beliefs as a Quaker. Likewise, Mr. Adkins also seems oblivious to that fact that the Nazi’s planned to obliterate the Christian church. Hitler merely applied Galton’s atheistic theories. As early as 1937, Protestant churches issued a manifesto objecting to Nazi policies, and the Nazis retaliated by arresting 700 pastors, infiltrating their offices. Hitler wrote his own bible, teaching his followers a “survival of the fittest” ideology. They were told that they have sinned against natural selection and that weaker races should be exterminated.
At any rate, the concept of slavery as it appeared in the “New World” (the Americas) was foreign to the Bible. The vast majority of slavery found in the Old Testament was voluntary and done in order to pay debts. God instituted a number of laws in order to restrain the evils which might occur in this arrangement, recognizing the humanness of the slave and setting time-limits for the duration of his required services. Furthermore, OT slavery was mostly conducted within family clans. People in Old Testament times—the ancient Near East—did not value personal freedoms in the ways modern Americans do. Instead, they valued belonging to a group, partly because of the protections provided to them through their clan elders/ masters. The particular type of slavery used in the early Americas was not known by the Old Testament, ancient Near East. Their word for “slavery” did not mean the same thing.
The accusation of God being “bitter and angry” in the OT is a gross misrepresentation. God was both just and merciful in both testaments, not just one of them. God did not create slavery, but He did use it as a tool for his purposes of justice as well as mercy. We could also get into NT books, like Philemon, where Paul pleads for the release of Onesimus at his own cost. However, I would challenge anyone to make a list of the things which make slavery evil and see for themselves if such things are condoned in the Bible. I do believe that what you will find is that slavery was not created by God, that treating others with undue cruelty is explicitly forbidden, and that God’s plan involved the abolition of slavery from the beginning.
Would anyone like to provide a rationale for the abolition of slavery from the atheistic perspective of “survival of the fittest?” It’s funny what they do not mention in history classes concerning the influence of Darwinism nowadays. The very objections you have against slavery did not come from atheistic, Darwinian beliefs, but from the pages of the Bible into our Western culture, being passed on to you, Mr. Adkins. Where was the atheist during the trading of black slaves? Making a profit, of course! Where was the atheist during the Holocaust? Constructing the Nazi death camps to help evolution along. After all, might makes right.
“If you bring that fact up, a typical response will be, "Well I believe in the New Testament," which brings us back to nothing. Jesus never bothered.”
Actually, you are quite wrong. Jesus dealt with issues such as power, favoritism, poverty, and status on numerous occasions. Many of His own followers either had been or were slaves. You simply do not understand the cultural backdrop of His day or the Bible. In regards to the world of man, Jesus put everyone on equal footing in respect to power, favoritism, poverty and status—this included masters and slaves. He rebuked and preached against the very attitudes and beliefs which comprise the institution of slavery throughout His entire ministry. The biblical writers followed suit. What you do not understand, however, is that Jesus’ ministry was not about abolishing Roman political institutions. Actually, He attacked such evils at their very roots, which are spiritual in nature. His mission was to lead many out of their bondage of spiritual slavery to sin. He did this knowing that earthly manifestations of sin flow out of spiritual bondage.
It is true that Jesus did not deal with the institution of New World slavery specifically; but it is silly to expect such a thing, since it did not yet exist. You are imposing modern controversies on an ancient text, and modern sensibilities onto an ancient world, without realizing that issues such as slavery or culture are very complex.
“(if he ever existed at all, by the way, that is not set in stone fact).”
That depends on what you regard as “stone fact” and whether or not you are willing to look at the evidence objectively and coherently. I happen to believe that the evidence for His existence is simply irrefutable. It becomes much more difficult to explain Him away than to simply accept the overwhelming evidence. However, that does not stop many people. If human beings have the capacity to deny a truth because it offends them, how much more would you suppose that they might deny The Truth?
“The point is,…Your Christ told you to love. That's all. To love and treat other well. No matter what they did to you. Or what they did themselves. Your suppose to love.”
Your understanding of Jesus and what He taught (or what all of Scripture teaches) is obviously very limited. Have you even bothered to read the very book you are criticizing? You don’t even seem to be aware that some of the strongest condemnations against homosexuality is actually in the NT. You also do not seem to have much of a grasp on the larger picture: God has announced already His condemnation upon homosexuals. It is not my condemnation, but His. I am merely warning them about the impending judgment they will face, not because I desire to see them burn (as popular culture has misinformed you), but because I want to see them saved from God’s righteous judgment, just I have been. They hate Christians for this—and do not seem to mind mislabeling and judging us—but we do it because a sincere love and concern for their well-being, both in this life and the one to come.
Furthermore, you also seem oblivious to how absolutely destructive the homosexual lifestyle is to the very people who engage in it. Anyone who would ever promote such a lifestyle is the one who must be full of hatred. You seem to think that Christians refer to Genesis as a fairy-tale to be used at their convenience in order to excuse their contempt for others. You are quite wrong. The reason why Christians tell you that God created them male and female is to demonstrate God’s purposes for His creation. To deviate from God’s intended purposes is to fall into futility and the corruption of the very faculties which He design for our own well-being and His glory. In other words, when things are designed for one thing, but misused for another, there are very serious consequences attached to such misuses. For example, with food, if we are designed to be nourished through one means but exchange those means for another, then we become malnourished until we either die or do what is suitable for our diet. Likewise, society and culture is nourished by the union of one man and one woman—through marriage. It is through the union of one man and one woman that society may continue, propagate with children, and maintain relative health. You have been brought up to believe the myth that what we do, as private individuals, has no impact on the larger society. Therefore, it is no one else’s business. This is called individualism and it is a myth. Let me lay down the brutal facts of the homosexual lifestyle; and then we’ll look at how the Gay agenda (and the Gaystapo) deconstructs and corrupts the very identity of people as men and women through legal tyranny, political misinformation, and the systematic enforcement and propagation of its reconstituted death culture.
I refer to it as a death culture for some very obvious reasons, not just as a function of rhetoric. The average lifespan of a homosexual male is about 24 years shorter than that of a heterosexual male. While it has been argued that the reasons for this are due to discrimination and its associated pressures, the empirical data does not seem to support such an explanation. When comparing the U.S. to Denmark, for example, a highly tolerant society toward gays, lesbians, and homosexuals, there is no difference in the data. Furthermore, homosexuals are about 50% more likely to suffer from depression and engage in substance abuse compared to the rest of the population, and those who have engaged in the homosexual lifestyle are about 200% more likely to commit suicide.[i] In addition, while only 2% of the population is gay, it accounts for 61% of all HIV infections[ii] and are the only risk group in which new HIV have been increasing steadily since the 1990’s.[iii]
It might be interesting to note that the Greek word translated as “homosexual” in the NT (1 Co. 6:9) is “arsenocoitus.” The word literally refers to one who burns in sexual passions. The Book of Romans indicates a loss of control over this sexual faculty and an exchange from a natural desire to an unnatural one (1:26-27). These biblical teachings are apparent in our own times, as the statistical data fully notes:
"In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al. found that "the modal range for number of sexual partners ever [of homosexuals] was 101–500." In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than 1000 lifetime sexual partners."[iv] Indeed, one Kinsey study showed that 79% of the homosexual men surveyed reported that over half of their sexual encounters were with strangers, with 70% reporting that over half of their partners were people with whom they’ve only had sex once. In other words, the reality about the homosexual life-style does not so much entail committed or monogamous relationships, but rather strongly indicates casual encounters outside of any sense of a committed relationship.
This fact seems to better explain the discontent so prevalent in the gay community, despite Mr. Adkins’ claims that they are happy. Actually, when one investigates the domestic trends and mental well-being of the gay community from a more objective, empirical stand-point, one cannot help but notice the deeply ingrained dissatisfaction and unhappiness prevalent to the lifestyle.
In a national health study, 75% of nearly 2,000 lesbian respondents said they had pursued some form of psychological counseling of some form, much of which involved treatment for long-term depression or sadness.[v] According to another study, homosexual men are about six times more likely to attempt suicide than heterosexual men.[vi] Domestic violence and abuse is nearly doubled in gay co-habitations; [vii] while a survey of lesbian couples showed that 54% had experienced ten or more incidents of abuse, 74% had experienced six or more incidents, 60% reported a pattern to the abuse, and 71% claimed it grew worse over time.[viii] Meanwhile, The National Violence against Women Survey found that "same-sex cohabitants reported significantly more intimate partner violence than did opposite-sex cohabitants. Thirty-nine percent of the same-sex cohabitants reported being raped, physically assaulted, and/or stalked by a marital/cohabitating partner at some time in their lifetimes, compared to 21.7 percent of the opposite-sex cohabitants. Among men, the comparable figures are 23.1 percent and 7.4 percent."[ix]
In addition to the detrimental domestic trends and psychological health of adult gays and lesbians, children raised by same-sex couples are two to four times more likely to be homosexuals. Adult children of homosexual parents were found to be about fifty times more likely to be victims of sexual molestation by their gay parent—29% of children with homosexual parents versus 0.6% of children with heterosexual parents.
At any rate, these are only a few of the statistics. Many more could be added. The point, however, is to ask: how is it loving to encourage others to embrace a life-style which clearly lowers their quality of life, as well as longevity, makes them more prone to deep dissatisfaction, and exposes them to various dangers, diseases, molestation, and violence?
Skipping ahead, Mr. Adkins demonstrates where he gets his faulty understanding concerning the morbid world of gays and lesbians when he writes, “So, let gays get married, love everyone like your suppose to, and move on with your life. You don't need to come home and kick the dog because gays are happy. And they'll ruin marriage and the American Family? Please? Have you watched Cable? Have you ever heard of Vegas?”
Welcome to the reality outside the television box Mr. Adkins.
[iv] Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354.
[v] J. Bradford et al., "National Lesbian Health Care Survey: Implications for Mental Health Care," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 62 (1994): 239, cited in Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality, p. 81.
[vi] Bell and Weinberg, “Homosexualities…”, Table 21.12.
[vii] D. Island and P. Letellier, Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence (New York: Haworth Press, 1991): 14.
[viii] William C. Nichols, et al, editors, Handbook of Family Development and Intervention(New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 2000): 393.
[ix] "Extent, Nature, and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence," U.S. Department of Justice: Office of Justice Programs (July, 2000): 30.
The question was put to me that “If God predestines, why would He create people for the purpose of sending them to hell?” It’s a reasonable question to ask. After all, how would it be loving or even just for God to do such a thing? At least this was the objection as it was put to me.
I understand that this is a controversial topic—even within the scope of Christianity. Actually, this was one of the most difficult questions I have wrestled with as a Christian. I understand that many who read this will not agree with my conclusion, but it seems quite clear to me—both logic and the Bible clearly teach that God creates and predestines many to eternal punishment. Is it loving, you ask? But I ask “loving” according to whose standard? Is it just, you ask? Once again, “justice” according to whose standard?
Cannot the Potter break the work of His own hands? Are not the works of His hands His own to do with whatsoever He desires?
Here’s the thing—the question assumes much. One could also ask, why would God create people knowing that they will go to hell? So, unless the Christian also wants to deny the foreknowledge (the omniscience) of God as well, it seems they may have a similar predicament, right?
Behind the question is the presumption of purpose on the part of God. If God creates a person for the singular or express purpose of that person’s eternal punishment, then this would be malicious indeed. It implies an all-powerful sadist: a cosmic bully who derives pleasure from pulling the wings from flies and setting them on fire. However, if this truly was the case, then sadism would be okay since the ground and foundation of all ethics and morals is, by logical necessity, God.
All would be lost.
However, who has ever claimed that eternal punishment was His sole or express purpose for predestining people to eternal punishment? Those, like me, who believe in predestination, do not claim such a thing. Rather, perhaps He creates unrepentant sinners and predestines them to eternal damnation so that He might 1) demonstrate His patience and long-suffering on vessels of wrath and 2) demonstrate His justice by condemning those who did not follow His ordinances and broke His laws. Since we know that all things (and Scripture says “all things”) work together for the glory of God, then perhaps His purposes in predestination are for His own glory?
Consider what the apostle Paul writes in his letter to the Romans:
“And not only so, but also when Rebekah had conceived children by one man, our forefather Isaac, though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” As it is written, “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”” (Romans 9:10-13 ESV)
Notice here that this is according to God’s election—His free choice—and not because of anything Jacob or Esau had done? The apostle continues:
“What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means!” (Romans 9:14)
Did you notice that Paul anticipates the very objection we are dealing with, here, in what I am writing?
“For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.” (Romans 9:15-16)
Doesn't this verse explicitly say that it does not matter upon human will or exertion, but only upon God’s choice and election? Of course it does! That’s exactly what it is saying.
And, in case we missed it that last time, Paul uses yet another example to express that same teaching in the very next verses:
“For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.” (Romans 9:17-18)
Who has mercy?—God! Who hardens?—God!
“You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?”” (Romans 9:19)
Isn't this essentially the same question I am addressing because of predestination in this note?
“But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?”” (Romans 9:20)
Cannot the Potter break the work of His own hands? Are not the works of His hands His own to do with whatsoever He desires?
“Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use? What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory….” (Romans 9:21-23)
So, as we see, all of creation—including mankind—belongs to God, and He is free to do with it whatsoever He pleases. The free choices of mere, finite men cannot and do not limit the infinite knowledge, power, or the free choices of God to do with His creation all the He pleases. There is no injustice or wrongdoing on God's part just because He freely elects some to be the subjects of His mercy while freely choosing to bring others to justice. For all have sinned. Therefore, all deserve their just-desserts for violating God's infinite holiness.
““Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and with the measure you use it will be measured to you. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. “Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you.” (Matthew 7:1–6, ESV)
This passage has a parallel passage in Luke:
““Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven; give, and it will be given to you. Good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For with the measure you use it will be measured back to you.” He also told them a parable: “Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully trained will be like his teacher. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take out the speck that is in your eye,’ when you yourself do not see the log that is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take out the speck that is in your brother’s eye. “For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit, for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thornbushes, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. The good person out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasure produces evil, for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.” (Luke 6:37–45)
Here’s what a well-known and widely respected commentary says about Matthew 7:
7:1–6 (Luke 6:41–42). A final illustration of Pharisaic practices pertains to judging. The Pharisees were then judging Christ and finding Him to be inadequate. He was not offering the kind of kingdom they anticipated or asking for the kind of righteousness they were exhibiting. So they rejected Him. Jesus therefore warned them against hypocritical judging.
This passage does not teach that judgments should never be made; Matthew 7:5 does speak of removing the speck from your brother’s eye. The Lord’s point was that a person should not be habitually critical or condemnatory of a speck of sawdust in someone else’s eye when he has a plank—a strong hyperbole for effect—in his own eye. Such action is hypocritical (You hypocrite, v. 5; cf. “hypocrites” in 6:2, 5, 16). Though judgment is sometimes needed, those making the distinctions (krinō, judge, means “to distinguish” and thus “to decide”) must first be certain of their own lives.
Furthermore when seeking to help another, one must exercise care to do what would be appreciated and beneficial. One should never entrust holy things (what is sacred) to unholy people (dogs; cf. “dogs” in Phil. 3:2) or throw … pearls to pigs. Dogs and pigs were despised in those days.
*Louis A. Barbieri and Jr., "Matthew" In , in The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures, ed. J. F. Walvoord and R. B. Zuck (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985), Mt 7:1–6.
“At that time the disciples came to Jesus, saying, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” And calling to him a child, he put him in the midst of them and said, “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”” (Matthew 18:1–4 ESV)
“Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.” (Mark 10:15, Luke 18:17)
Oftentimes, these verses are presented in an effort to back up the assertion that God wants us to have a “childlike faith” and to view Scripture in light of its apparent “simplicity.” What they usually mean by this is that Christians should not be intellectual in their walk with Christ, but “simple” in their thought life about God because the Gospel is simple or the word of God is simple.
However, I find a great number of problems with such a “simple” outlook on faith. For one thing, the verses above actually mention nothing about “faith” per se, or even anything about intellectual pursuits directly. Those who interpret the text in such a way are reading their anti-intellectual biases into the Bible, rather than drawing the meaning out of it. What all these texts actually teach are to be “childlike” in terms of HUMILITY. Whether that means being that way in my intellectual pursuits is presupposed, not by a thorough reading of the Bible, but by the impressions the biased reader has about intellectual pursuits, which he got from his culture or traditions. The irony is that being “childlike” actually means to put away such faulty persuasions, so that the student may sit at the knee of the Father and learn from Him.
Another problem I have with such an outlook are the number of verses which inevitably pop into my head to contradict it. For example, in his first letter to the Corinthians, the apostle Paul exhorts that church in the following way:
“When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.” (1 Corinthians 13:11)
Notice how the topic here is not about humility, but about how one speaks, thinks, and REASONS. He is telling the Corinthians, through his own example, that they are to stop speaking, thinking, and reasoning like children, but to grow up and mature to wisdom.
The writer of Hebrews addresses the same thing, but with much harsher words:
“About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil. Therefore let us leave the elementary doctrine of Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God…” (Hebrews 5:11–6:1).
According to this, the trouble with Christians who just want to keep things “simple,” is that they have become “dull,” “unskilled,” as well as ‘immature,’ and ‘childish.’ They are not progressing much in their understanding of divine things because they won’t wean off the milk to sink their teeth into the meat of spiritual matters. I don’t see a Christian here who is being faithful, but one who is afraid. It isn't the ones who think deeply about the complexities of their faith who are being unfaithful, but the ones who keep clinging to the breast, like babies, perhaps because they are impressed and feel threatened by the learning of nonbelievers?
The apostle Peter actually refers to parts of Scripture as not simple, but difficult to understand:
“Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.” (2 Peter 3:14–18)
I will let those verses speak for themselves, but I also did a word search on the term “simple” in the ESV. The term appeared twenty times in nineteen verses and not a single one of them said anything good about being “simple,” but condemned it in a wide variety of ways:
Being “simple” means to lack in knowledge. It is not good to lack in knowledge, particularly when the simplicity is voluntary and self imposed. Part of our walk with Christ is to be transformed by the renewal of our minds, to take every thought captive for Him, and to love God with our minds. We do not stand on the alleged “simplicity” of the Gospel. Instead, we stand on the Gospel. There simply is nothing in the Bible to warrant attitudes which foster anti-intellectualism. Rather, the problem with such thinking is that it causes all manners of miseries and troubles, even apostasies and heresies. It causes endless quarreling because irrationality denies reality, falsely divides over doctrines which belong together, and attempts to unify things that God has divided.
The simple cannot be as wise as a serpent, nor can he destroy the lofty arguments raised against the glory of God because he does not understand them. He commends those who contradict him and attacks those who agree with him. He does not act out of knowledge, faith, or wisdom, but out of impulse, fear, and ignorance. He usually loathes instruction but is quick to chastise others. He should learn to listen to wisdom as child, so that he might mature in the faith.
A progressive liberal is like a barren mother, a childless viper who steals the eggs from another bird's nest.
Why would I say that?
Statistically speaking, progressive liberals, who tend to be academically minded, are not having enough children to replace themselves. They tend to focus much more on their careers in the university or in politics, opting to have children later in life, if they have any at all. So to whom do they spread their views about the way things are?
...To the impressionable children of unsuspecting religious people of course.
And they do it on someone else's dollar to someone else's kid, all across the country, in colleges and schools. What do they teach? Liberal progressivism. But to understand the worldview of a these progressives, one must understand it's core, foundational principle--the DNA of its view about the world. And what is that?
The Hegelian Dialectic.
This is the DNA of their entire worldview, the core philosophy through which they evaluate reality. It works something like this: Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis. Hegel was a German philosopher who, in the wake of Immanuel Kant, rejected the notion that human beings had access to objective, absolute truths, or the essences of things. Instead, what Hegel did was to promote what he called the "zeitgeist," meaning the "time spirit." What this meant was that, throughout time, humankind was progressively becoming more and more knowledgeable...enlightened, so to speak. It's the idea that the history of mankind was a like a spirit, moving closer by degrees toward a purer truth. So, out with the old, traditional ways of thinking, and in with the new.
The dialectic is like the engine of this process. The old traditional views (the thesis) would be challenged by the new views (the antithesis), usually held by younger people, and would gradually produce a changed society (the synthesis). The new synthesis would become the old thesis, and on and on it goes. Old views would be held to be "primitive," "outdated," or "obsolete," while new views would be seen as "cutting edge," "innovative," and so forth.
Progressivism redefines the role of the politician as well as the role of the educator. In education, the goal is "change" and "moving on to a better tomorrow." The schools are the most important battleground for the progressive thinker because, in it, there are all sorts of malleable minds waiting to be shaped for tomorrow. The schools become the place where students learn to reject the obsolete views of their primitive parents (thesis), and replace it with new and cutting edge ideas (antithesis), which leads society into a new age, with different ideas and beliefs about the world (synthesis). Who pays the educator and the politicians to undermine them? The parents. Who produces the children and unwittingly hands them over to a system designed to undermine their traditional views? Mostly, religious parents.
What is important to understand about Liberal Progressivism and the Hegelian Dialectic is that the conflict never ends. Since society is always moving toward an infinite truth, then it never really reaches it. New ideas will always become old, and will always give way to a new challenge. The State will always be there to manipulate its citizenry and the educator will always undermine the values of the parent. The son will always despise his father, and society will always keep on fragmenting until it falls apart.
Nazi Germany believed in this notion of progress, and Socialism became the new fad of government all throughout Europe. Karl Marx co-opted the dialectic, viewing mankind as a material commodity, and applied it to class warfare. The new dialectic would now mean the bourgeois versus the proletariat and would eventually synthesize into a new utopia, the Communistic State.
In terms of the American classroom, truth is a temporary, fleeting thing. Old, traditional models of knowledge give way to new models of learning and knowing...until those, likewise, grow old and become replaced by a new controversy. The student is not subjected to an emphasis on "factual based" knowledge. He is defintely not taught logic. Rather, he is encouraged to read the opinings of other progressives and talk about his feelings and speculations with a group, directed by a progressive facilitator, of course. His thoughts on the matter, where they convey any semblance of traditional values (such as those taught to him by his father), are discouraged by the facilitator and the group. It is the acquisition of knowledge on the basis of peer-pressure, authority, and group consensus, in short, "herd mentality."
This is why the world is changing. This is what it means to be a "Progressive" or a "Socialist" or a "Communist." This is what it means to be a "Liberal" and to constantly embrace change. The only thing truly evil to such people is yesterday, always yesterday. But in some sort of cosmic design of bittersweet irony, they are forever cursed to repeat all those yesterdays. Like a mouse trapped in a caged wheel, always running but never arriving anywhere. Always reaching a group consensus, but forever fragmenting...until society crumbles and they start anew.
Is the consumption of alcoholic drinks, such as beer or wine, permitted by Scripture?
The short answer is yes, moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages is permitted by the word of God. It is not sinful to drink an alcoholic beverage, per se. There are exceptions, of course, some of which I will address later, but first let’s have a look at a list of Bible verses that seem to contradict my stance on the permissibility of alcohol. The list posted below consists of seventy-one verses, by my count, nicely organized into thirty-one counterarguments. Since it was offered as a refutation, let’s take a quick look at it to see what some of those counterarguments are:
1) Leviticus 10:9-11 - God commanded priests not to drink so that they could tell the difference between the holy and the unholy.
2) Numbers 6:3 - The Nazarites were told to eat or drink nothing from the grape vine.
3) Deuteronomy 29:5-6 - God gave no grape juice to Israel nor did they have intoxicating drink in the wilderness.
4) Judges 13:4, 7, 14 - Samson was to be a Nazarite for life. His mother was told not to drink wine or strong drink.
5) Psalm 75:8 - The Lord’s anger is pictured as mixed wine poured out and drunk by the wicked.
6) Proverbs 4:17 - Alcoholic drink is called the wine of violence.
7) Proverbs 20:1 - Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging.
8) Proverbs 23:19-20 - A wise person will not be among the drinkers of alcoholic beverages.
9) Proverbs 23:31 - God instructs not to look at intoxicating drinks.
10) Proverbs 23:32 - Alcoholic drinks bite like a serpent, sting like an adder.
11) Proverbs 23:34 - Alcohol makes the drinker unstable
12) Proverbs 31:4-5 - Kings, Princes, and others who rule and judge must not drink alcohol. Alcohol perverts good judgment.
13) Proverbs 31:6-7 - Strong drink could be given to those about to perish or those in pain. Better anesthetics are available today.
14) Ecclesiastes 10:17 - A land is blessed when its leaders do not drink.
15) Isaiah 56:9-12 - Drinkers seek their own gain and expect tomorrow to be just like today.
16) Jeremiah 35:2-14 - The Rechabites drank no grape juice or intoxicating wine and were blessed.
17) Ezekiel 44:21 - Again God instructed the priests not to drink wine.
18) Daniel 1:5-17 - Daniel refused the king’s intoxicating wine and was blessed for it along with his abstaining friends.
19) Habakkuk 2:5 - A man is betrayed by wine.
20) Habakkuk 2:15 - Woe to him that gives his neighbor drink.
21) Habakkuk 2:16 - Drinking leads to shame.
22) Luke 1:15 - John the Baptist drank neither grape juice nor wine.
23) Romans 14:21 - Do not do anything that will hurt your testimony as a believer.
24) 1 Corinthians 5:11 - If a Christian brother is a drinker, do not associate with him.
25) 1 Thessalonians 5:6-7 - Christians are to be alert and self-controlled, belonging to the day. Drunkards belong to the night and darkness.
26) 1 Timothy 3:2-3 - Bishops (elders) are to be temperate, sober, and not near any wine.
27) 1 Timothy 3:8 - Deacons are to be worthy of respect and not drinkers.
28) 1 Timothy 3:11 - Deacons’ wives are to be temperate and sober.
29) Titus 1:7-8 - An overseer is to be disciplined.
30) Titus 2:2-3 - The older men and older women of the church are to be temperate and not addicted to wine.
31) 1 Peter 4:3-4 - The past life of drunkenness and carousing has no place in the Christian’s life.
While the list appears very large, perhaps even overwhelmingly incriminating to my stance on alcoholic drinks, the truth of the matter is that not a single one of them actually forbids Christians from having a beer, or a glass of wine. Almost all of these are actually prohibitions against drunkenness and alcoholism, and do not pertain to moderate use of alcohol. Others refer to special priestly restrictions, like those given to the “Nazarites,” [sic] and are no longer relevant today any more than the Old Testament prohibitions against shell fish or pork. And a good number of these are rather misleading, or irresponsible in their handling of sacred texts.
For example, the very first set of verses on this list, says that Leviticus 10:9-11 means that “God commanded priests not to drink so that they could tell the difference between the holy and the unholy,” giving the impression that God commanded priests not to drink, ever. The part that it omits, however, is a rather important detail to the question we are investigating: It tells priests not to drink “when you go into the tent of meeting.” The inference here is obvious enough—priests may drink outside the tent of meeting, but not in it.
Since the very first item on this list is actually shown to be misleading, it makes one wonder what the rest of them have to offer. While I’ll briefly comment on all of them at the end of this paper, let’s take another example. Consider item number nine—does anyone seriously think that God is really restricting that all Christians in all times are not to even “look at intoxicating drinks?” Obviously, someone’s interpretation has gone awry, so let’s look at the context of the passage:
“Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has strife? Who has complaining? Who has wounds without cause? Who has redness of eyes? Those who tarry long over wine; those who go to try mixed wine. Do not look at wine when it is red, when it sparkles in the cup and goes down smoothly. In the end it bites like a serpent and stings like an adder. Your eyes will see strange things, and your heart utter perverse things. You will be like one who lies down in the midst of the sea, like one who lies on the top of a mast. “They struck me,” you will say, “but I was not hurt; they beat me, but I did not feel it. When shall I awake? I must have another drink.”” (Proverbs 23:29–35, ESV)
The context deals with that of a very severe alcoholic, so much so that his addiction causes him to hallucinate, a rare psychosis induced by lots of alcohol, and to pass out. This passage from Proverbs advises readers not to fall into such a state. It is a poetic form of writing intended to offer wise counsel, or advice, about the dangers of such temptations. It is a warning against the temptations that lead to loss of self-control, not an apodictic command to not even look at red wine. Poetry and wisdom literature should never be read as though they were more technical, legal writings. They are very different genres of literature, with very different conventions of writing and rules of communication. Poetic language is figurative, as the proverb here shows. Applying this proverb as legal speech to someone having a glass of wine with their dinner seems like a long stretch of the imagination, not to mention the text.
With two of the items addressed, and twenty-nine more to go, let us leave this list for now, and turn to Scriptures that actually do cause problems for those who would want to universally prohibit what God has allowed.
“Give strong drink to the one who is perishing, and wine to those in bitter distress; let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more.” (Proverbs 31:6–7)
This one actually shows up as number thirteen on that list, but the compiler attempts to refute it by saying, “Better anesthetics are available today.” Of course, this is not true for everyone, and it is also beside the point. The point is that the Bible allows intoxicating amounts of alcohol to be given to those who are perishing. Notice how the compiler wants to believe that alcohol consumption is unilaterally wrong, even though the Scriptures clearly contradict him?
“You cause the grass to grow for the livestock and plants for man to cultivate, that he may bring forth food from the earth and wine to gladden the heart of man, oil to make his face shine and bread to strengthen man’s heart.” (Psalm 104:14–15)
According to this section, God makes wine to make men happy, which is a very strange thing for the psalmist to say if we are unilaterally forbidden to drink it, let alone look at it.
The truth of the matter is that in the ancient world of the Bible, alcoholic drinks such as wine were very commonplace. Grapes were the biggest business in agriculture, and most of that went into making wines. Wine was so pervasive to the typical near-easterner that the entire Bible has countless references and allusions to it. It was a part of their everyday life. Jesus himself spoke of wineskins, vineyards, wine presses, and even produced wine clearly intended for consumption. His first miracle, at the wedding at Cana, was turning water into choice wine.
“On the third day there was a wedding at Cana in Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there. Jesus also was invited to the wedding with his disciples. When the wine ran out, the mother of Jesus said to him, “They have no wine.” And Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.” His mother said to the servants, “Do whatever he tells you.” Now there were six stone water jars there for the Jewish rites of purification, each holding twenty or thirty gallons. Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water.” And they filled them up to the brim. And he said to them, “Now draw some out and take it to the master of the feast.” So they took it. When the master of the feast tasted the water now become wine, and did not know where it came from (though the servants who had drawn the water knew), the master of the feast called the bridegroom and said to him, “Everyone serves the good wine first, and when people have drunk freely, then the poor wine. But you have kept the good wine until now.” This, the first of his signs, Jesus did at Cana in Galilee, and manifested his glory. And his disciples believed in him.” (John 2:1–11)
Something interesting to note is that it was customary for the best wine to be consumed first by the wedding guests, then they would move on to drink the lesser quality wines. However, Jesus’ wine was superior to all the wine previously offered at the wedding, and according one commentary, he made approximately 120 gallons of it as a gift to the couple. Does anyone seriously believe that He forbade the drinking of it?
Moving on, I am rather pleased that our list brings up John the Baptist being forbidden to drink wine because it helps to establish my next point. Just as the Nazirites had accepted the total prohibition against wine, so too did John the Baptist.
“And you [Elizabeth] will have joy and gladness, and many will rejoice at his birth, for he [John the Baptist] will be great before the Lord. And he must not drink wine or strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb.” (Luke 1:14–15)
However, if the compiler of the list mentioned above wants to argue that the vows of the Nazirites should apply to Christians, then all of those vows must apply as well. He cannot cut his hair, for example. He must give offerings at the tent of meeting (which would constitute a denial of the sufficiency of Christ’s sacrifice), he must not eat grapes or raisins either. John, much like the Nazirites, lived under the laws of Moses, so all of those would apply as well. (See Numbers 6:1-21)
Nonetheless, the real reason I bring up John the Baptist is not to point out his prohibitions, but to contrast his prohibitions, which are under the law, with the freedom of Jesus, who is greater than the Law of Moses. Regarding John, the Scriptures record Jesus saying, in Matthew 11:18, “For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon.’”
After proclaiming to an unbelieving people that John was the greatest prophet, Jesus indicates John’s abstinence from wine and strong drink. However, about Himself Jesus continues to say, “The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ Yet wisdom is justified by her deeds.”” (Matthew 11:19).
Note that Jesus is saying that John abstained, but that He, Himself, did not. It is irrefutable that the inference here is that Jesus drank alcoholic beverages. His contrasting Himself to John’s abstinence makes no sense otherwise. To some, Jesus’ eating and drinking with tax collectors and sinners would likely fall under the category of having the “appearance of evil.” They certainly condemned Him as a “glutton and a drunkard,” much like some folks do today when they see a Christian with a beer or a glass of wine. However, according to this passage he does not abstain from any alleged “appearance of evil,” but rebukes them for their hypocrisy and uncharitable judgments.
At any rate, not only did Jesus provide wine for a wedding, and not only did He drink wine Himself, He also commanded His disciples to drink it and instituted its consumption in the Lord’s Supper:
“And when the hour came, he reclined at table, and the apostles with him. And he said to them, “I have earnestly desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you I will not eat it until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he said, “Take this, and divide it among yourselves. For I tell you that from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes.” And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood.” (Luke 22:14–20)
The phrase “fruit of the vine,” quite obviously refers to wine. This is how countless scholars and theologians have understood that phrase throughout history, and wine was definitely used for the Lord’s Supper as per the Apostle Paul’s instructions in 1 Corinthians 11:20-34, since he rebukes that church for becoming drunk from it.
Speaking of Paul, he also instructs the elder Timothy to drink wine for his maladies:
“No longer drink only water, but use a little wine for the sake of your stomach and your frequent ailments.” (1 Timothy 5:23)
So not only are there no biblical passages or verses that forbid the moderate consumption of alcoholic beverages to Christians, many of those offered to support such a notion actually end up inferring the opposite (see my refutation of the list below). Furthermore, there are the additional problems that Jesus provided wine for others to drink, instructed others to drink it, and actually drank it Himself. And not only does Paul tell Timothy to consume it, but the Bible actually celebrates wine as gift from the Lord, given to make men happy.
Romans 14 describe the actions and the mindset of Christian maturity. The brother who is free to partake is always portrayed as the stronger brother because he understands that everything that has been made clean, and made by God for him to partake…this includes wine. The weaker brother, however, stumbles over his freedom, thinking some things profane and unclean. To partake in them violates his conscience because of his lack of belief, and to him it is sin.
Nonetheless, both brothers are God’s workmanship: His song, and His poem. And just as any of God’s poems, His verses shall not be construed to be opposing one another. He causes both to stand—the stronger and the weaker. The stronger brother is free to partake in wine, but not as to cause his brother to stumble. The weaker brother is not to judge the stronger brother, bringing him back under the law.
The stronger brother, while free to drink, should not drink, if it violates the weaker one, tempting him to sin. In such a case, both would be guilty of the weaker brother’s sin. The weaker brother sins because he did not honor God, but went against his conscience, drinking evil to himself. The stronger brother sins because he cherished wine more than he loved his brother. Our brothers and sisters in the Lord are infinitely more valuable than wine.
However, the church also should not allow the tainted consciences of its weaker brothers to become bondages to those who are free because we no longer live under the law. It would be a denial of God’s provisions and grace to the church. Consider what is written to the Colossians:
“If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the world, why, as if you were still alive in the world, do you submit to regulations— “Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch” (referring to things that all perish as they are used)—according to human precepts and teachings? These have indeed an appearance of wisdom in promoting self-made religion and asceticism and severity to the body, but they are of no value in stopping the indulgence of the flesh.” (Colossians 2:20–23)
God does not judge the one who eats or the one who drinks, and neither should any Christian. Passing prohibitions, where God does not judge, is to deny God’s judgment on such matters. It elevates the mere opinions of weaker brothers over the God-given freedoms of stronger brothers, causing the weaker to rebuke those who are free. Also, as Paul points out, they are of no value in stopping the indulgences of the flesh anyway. So why institute them? Is it because we believe in the power of laws and prohibitions more than the presence of God? So I submit Romans 14 to the reader for careful examination and study.
For those of you interested, my refutation of the remaining issues compiled are below. My response comes after each one:
1) Leviticus 10:9-11 - God commanded priests not to drink so that they could tell the difference between the holy and the unholy.
Already commented on this.
2) Numbers 6:3 - The Nazarites were told to eat or drink nothing from the grape vine.
Already commented on this.
3) Deuteronomy 29:5-6 - God gave no grape juice to Israel nor did they have intoxicating drink in the wilderness.
God also did not give them bread, but this hardly constitutes a restriction against eating it. The compiler isn’t being honest with the context of this passage, since it is not a prohibition.
4) Judges 13:4, 7, 14 - Samson was to be a Nazarite for life. His mother was told not to drink wine or strong drink.
I already dealt with Nazirites above.
5) Psalm 75:8 - The Lord’s anger is pictured as mixed wine poured out and drunk by the wicked.
Elsewhere, the Lord’s anger is also portrayed as a consuming fire, but it does not follow that fire is forbidden. Likewise, it does not follow that wine is forbidden. This is a logical fallacy.
6) Proverbs 4:17 - Alcoholic drink is called the wine of violence.
I already addressed wisdom literature and the use of poetry and figurative speech, the same thing applies here.
7) Proverbs 20:1 - Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging.
I already addressed wisdom literature and the use of poetry and figurative speech, the same thing applies here.
8) Proverbs 23:19-20 - A wise person will not be among the drinkers of alcoholic beverages.
That is not what these verses say. The compiler has equivocated “drunkards” with “drinkers of alcoholic beverages,” evidently in an attempt to mislead. Here’s what these verses really say:
“Hear, my son, and be wise, and direct your heart in the way. Be not among drunkards or among gluttonous eaters of meat, for the drunkard and the glutton will come to poverty, and slumber will clothe them with rags.” (Proverbs 23:19–21)
9) Proverbs 23:31 - God instructs not to look at intoxicating drinks.
Already commented on this.
10) Proverbs 23:32 - Alcoholic drinks bite like a serpent, sting like an adder.
Already commented on this.
11) Proverbs 23:34 - Alcohol makes the drinker unstable
Already commented on this.
12) Proverbs 31:4-5 - Kings, Princes, and others who rule and judge must not drink alcohol. Alcohol perverts good judgment.
Context refers to drunkenness of rulers, not moderate use.
13) Proverbs 31:6-7 - Strong drink could be given to those about to perish or those in pain. Better anesthetics are available today.
Already commented on this.
14) Ecclesiastes 10:17 - A land is blessed when its leaders do not drink.
Explicitly says “drunkenness” in the verse, not moderate use.
15) Isaiah 56:9-12 - Drinkers seek their own gain and expect tomorrow to be just like today.
Context refers to drunkenness, not moderate use. It explicitly says that they filled themselves with strong drink.
16) Jeremiah 35:2-14 - The Rechabites drank no grape juice or intoxicating wine and were blessed.
This one’s particularly misleading. The Recabites were not rewarded just for not drinking wine. They were used as an example of obedience to Israel because they obeyed every word of their master, Jonadab. This included Jonadab’s prohibition on drinking wine, yes, but it also included his prohibitions on building houses and sowing seeds. They were instructed to live in tents as nomads for all their days. The point was not about prohibitions against alcohol—which Jonadab (who is not God) gave to the Recabites—but to illustrate the point that if the Recabites could so faithfully obey Jonadab, why can’t the Israelites obey God?
17) Ezekiel 44:21 - Again God instructed the priests not to drink wine.
And once again we have another important omission: “…when they enter the inner court.” They may drink when they are not in the inner court. Also, laws ascribed to Levitical priests do not apply to Christians.
18) Daniel 1:5-17 - Daniel refused the king’s intoxicating wine and was blessed for it along with his abstaining friends.
He also would not eat the food because it was “unclean” to him, and would defile him as a Jew. Furthermore, Jews would dilute their wine to avoid intoxication—because they drank wine in moderation and avoided drunkenness—but a Babylonian like Nebuchadnezzar would not have diluted his wine. So the reason Daniel did not partake was because foods and drinks prepared by Gentiles would have defiled him and he probably did not want to become intoxicated. But to the church, God has made all things clean, all things are permissible. Jews, like Daniel, did not have such a luxury.
19) Habakkuk 2:5 - A man is betrayed by wine.
Actually this is from another poetic form where God is pronouncing judgment on the Babylonians for their deep wickedness. The Babylonians were known for their drunkenness, so the biblical author personifies wine as traitor and an arrogant man, but he’s really talking about the Babylonians.
20) Habakkuk 2:15 - Woe to him that gives his neighbor drink.
The context has to do with God pronouncing the condemnation of the cruel Babylonians because of the evil things they did to the Jewish people. This is the fourth “woe” in a series. The reason for the judgment was not merely the giving of wine (which Jesus Himself did at Cana), but the giving of wine with the intention of fornication. The verse explicitly says, “in order to gaze at their nakedness.”
21) Habakkuk 2:16 - Drinking leads to shame.
God pronounces shame on the Babylonians due to their intentions, as shown in the section above.
22) Luke 1:15 - John the Baptist drank neither grape juice nor wine.
Already commented on this.
23) Romans 14:21 - Do not do anything that will hurt your testimony as a believer.
That is not what this verse says. Already commented on this.
24) 1 Corinthians 5:11 - If a Christian brother is a drinker, do not associate with him.
The context applies to those who are in the church. The entire section is about church discipline. There are steps leading up to removing a brother from the church, and it is done as a last resort, and only if he is stubborn enough to persist in his sin (in this case being a drunk). The church community removes him as a whole, not just one or two overzealous Christians. Furthermore, the goal is to remove those persistent in their sins as a means of discipline, not to ostracize them. A Christian still may speak to his chastised brother outside the church, particularly if he trying to give counsel and support to his brother.
25) 1 Thessalonians 5:6-7 - Christians are to be alert and self-controlled, belonging to the day. Drunkards belong to the night and darkness.
Correct…but being a drunkard is not the same thing as drinking in moderation.
26) 1 Timothy 3:2-3 - Bishops (elders) are to be temperate, sober, and not near any wine.
That is not what the text says. It does not say “don’t be near any wine.” How would Timothy drink wine for his stomach if Paul told him not to be near it? How would Timothy partake in the Lord’s Supper if he was not allowed “near any wine?” The text actually says that bishops and elders are not to be drunkards.
27) 1 Timothy 3:8 - Deacons are to be worthy of respect and not drinkers.
Actually, the text says: “Deacons likewise must be dignified, not double-tongued, not addicted to much wine, not greedy for dishonest gain.” (1 Timothy 3:8)
28) 1 Timothy 3:11 - Deacons’ wives are to be temperate and sober.
The word used here for “sober” means “sober-minded,” or “temperate in their use of wine.”
29) Titus 1:7-8 - An overseer is to be disciplined.
No objection here. But moderate use of wine, does not mean to be lacking in discipline.
30) Titus 2:2-3 - The older men and older women of the church are to be temperate and not addicted to wine.
Exactly.
31) 1 Peter 4:3-4 - The past life of drunkenness and carousing has no place in the Christian’s life.
Once again, correct. But temperate use of alcohols, like beer or wine, hardly constitutes drunkenness and carousing. This would be like saying that someone is a glutton because he enjoys an occasional hamburger, which is equivalent to what non-believers were doing to Jesus, as mentioned earlier.
"Be aware of FALSE spirits whom the teachers of "ISM" peddle with many words and false pretense, for example. that GOD sent HIS son to save the selected Lost and that the Redemption of God was only for selected sinners of the world against John 3:16 with great pretense of "ISM" and nonsense of human falsehood...." ~Anonymous
...Of course, the irony is that the person who said this peddles the doctrines of Secular Humanism, which is both an "ism" and born of the human imagination. IT secularizes our understanding of man's freewill, creating a sovereignty of the autonomous man, which exists quite independently of the Creator, outside the scope of His power and freedom. As a consequent, believers of such a position elevate human liberty to either possess equality with God or superiority over Him.
This unfortunate aspect of elevating human freedom above divine liberty also manifests insecurities about the future. Because eschatology depends on the freewill actions of human agents, and human liberty rests not upon anything within God's control but in the random actions of mortals, the Christian faith comes to depend upon obscurity, as opposed to God. So the life of the mind within such believers becomes one of amazing cognitive acrobatics, since defending error is an infinitely complicated process. Others behold the complexity brought on by their error and choose to attribute it God's massiveness and inscrutability, raising the white flag of "simplicity" as a justification for not thinking about it. We just simply accept it.
Both the the Arminian and the Calvinist limit the atonement of Christ. As many know, the Calvinist limits the scope of cross, so that the shedding of blood is only efficacious, in terms of our eternal salvation, to a particular elect, chosen by God. Lesser known, however, is that while the Arminian widens the scope to include all people, he lessens the power of Christ's blood to be efficacious unto salvation, making it depend wholly on the random freewill actions of human beings. The Universalist is an Arminian who sees the problem, but attempts to "solve" it by retaining both the scope and the power of Christ's blood, so that everyone becomes saved. Ironically, this causes the Universalist to lose humanistic autonomy, of course, but he seems to prefer that debate over weakening the blood of Christ.
One of the staple texts of the Arminian, referenced in the above quotation, reads:
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16, ESV)
I think a critical mistake the Arminian makes occurs when he assumes that Calvinism denies that human persons possess freedom of the will, when it does not; and so reads this passage, assuming that it necessitates their position on libertarian freedom. However, the assumption arrives quite independently of the text here, the context necessitates no such thing. Where are the words "freedom," "choice," "choose," etc...? All it says is "whoever believes."
What does the Bible say about who causes the sinner to believe?
“For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.” (Romans 12:3)
This verse says faith is given by God.
“For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake....” (Philippians 1:29)
...and this verse teaches that belief is granted by God.
“Jesus answered them, “This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he has sent.”” (John 6:29)
Jesus teaches that our belief is produced by the working of God, a rather peculiar doctrine if our choosing and our believing exists independent of God's sovereignty.
So returning to John 3:16, the Arminian ignores the clear teachings of Scripture concerning who actually produces faith and belief when they interpret this text. They unwittingly appeal to Secular Humanism, to a corrupted philosophy of human autonomy, instead of allowing the Bible, or common sense, to shape their view of human agency.
Let us consider something, just on the level of simple, common sense. If I rob you at gun point, saying, "Your money or your life," I have effectively reduced your ability to choose. In your human freedom, my gun and the threat of it, has reduced the very autonomy some elevate to a divine level to a mere two choices: the money or your life. And that's only if I'm graciousness enough to not kill you anyway!
So if I can so drastically limit your autonomy with a gun, then how is it your weak and fragile freedom should be able to limit the all-powerful God who created it in the first place? Doesn't that defy simple common sense?
Notice how many things are affected by introducing libertarian freewill into the system of the biblical worldview? The Arminian actually nests his doctrine of man to an equal or superior status with his doctrine of God. This bit of yeast spreads to his doctrine of Christ and his doctrine of Salvation. It also spreads to his doctrine of sin as well as his doctrine of the heart and mind. It affects his interpretation of Scripture, how he preaches, how he conducts and participates in the orchestration of the church. Indeed, because he elevates human beings choosing to such a divine state, church becomes almost exclusively involved with the the types of choices one makes. The Arminian has become legalistic and does not know it.
What we say about God affects everything else. Just because something is not essential to salvation, does not mean it is not essential to the Christian faith. An essential is an essential not because it is the least common denominator. It is an essential because upon it everything else stands. It is the hinge of everything else within the system. Weaken God at any single point, and everything else collapses, as the yeast manifest itself in the life of the church over time.
The Calvinist, however, does need to temper his view of election with the clearly revealed truth in Ezekiel 18:23: "Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?" Too often, we hear Calvinists say that the damnation of the non-elect is "the good pleasure of His will." But here, God states explicitly that He takes no pleasure in damning anyone but prefers that they turn from sin and live. How this idea fits into the Calvinist scheme is not at all clear.
Nor is it clear, from a Calvinistic standpoint, why Jesus should weep over Jerusalem in Matthew 23:37: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing."
This poses a thorny difficulty for the Calvinist. First of all, he must assume that the reprobation of Jerusalem was "the good pleasure" of the Father. If that is so, why was it so displeasing and heart-rending to Jesus, who was always in agreement with the divine will? Shouldn't Jesus have also been "pleased" with the Father's reprobation of these people?
Secondly, Jesus is here attributing the lost condition of Jerusalem to her own unwillingness, not the want of election. Jesus was willing to receive them but they were unwilling. This seems to contradict the confident assertions of Calvinists about Unconditional Election.
So what doctrine do we put in the place of the Calvinist's Unconditional Election? Do we opt for one of the many Arminian forms of election? Tempting as that may be . . . I don't think so . . . Perhaps further theological works by thoughtful Christians will reveal a more satisfactory resting place for our convictions. I tell you what Jim; I, find the Holy Bible, the most fascinating book that I have ever read! I never tire of reading and contemplating the uniqueness of scripture . . . If we are to take the measuring line of Scripture (which is what canon means) and bend it to fit the wall that one is building in the present. In the end one has neither a measuring line nor a straight wall. Love ya Jim . . . enjoy reading your posts . . . good night my friend . . .
Well, what if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction, in order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory— even us whom he has called, not from the Jews only but also from the Gentiles?
What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God’s part? ...or does Jesus disapprove of what His Father desires? ...By no means!
The doctrine of (unconditional) election does not teach that God pleasures in the death of the wicked. I cannot really speak for other Calvinists, any more than you can speak for those within your own denomination, but I am sure folks who say such things can be found in any denomination or tradition.
I see no reason why Jesus would not weep over the destruction of Jerusalem. God desires the destruction of many, not because He is sadistic, but because He is the very essence of justice...and justice desires to punish evil.
When we are dealing with human desire and what a human wills, it gets very complicated quickly, if we are really thinking about it in any depth. The same is true of God, since He is a person, and not an inanimate, static thing. Indeed, Scripture teaches that God desires one thing, but does quite another all over the place! For example:
What God desires:
"And the master said to the slave, ‘Go out into the highways and along the hedges, and compel them to come in, that my house may be filled," (Luke 14:23).
What God does:
"And for this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they might believe what is false...." (2 Thess. 2:11).
What God desires:
Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says, “Today if you hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts as when they provoked Me, As in the day of trial in the wilderness...." (Heb. 3:7).
What God does:
"And the Lord said to Moses, "When you go back to Egypt see that you perform before Pharaoh all the wonders which I have put in your power; but I will harden his heart so that he will not let the people go...." (Exodus 4:21).
"So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires...." (Rom. 9:18).
Likewise, the Jesus who spoke in Matthew 23:37, also says, “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.” (Matthew 11:25–26)
Indeed, consider the reason Jesus actually gives for speaking in parables:
“And when he was alone, those around him with the twelve asked him about the parables. And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything is in parables, so that “they may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven.” (Mark 4:10–12)
So why does the Jesus who weeps over Jerusalem also rejoice at such a thing? Maybe it's because God's freedom and God's will and God's glory that is the superior thing? And, perhaps, the moment we question God's motives for doing all that He accomplishes, we actually lose our own moral ground to even question the Potter?
